A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the judgment of the court below No. 2), the Defendant did not call that the victim would have been in need of funds to deinform the victim with the money of the right to use the money of the right to use the money, and the Defendant said that the money is necessary for the agreement in criminal cases. Therefore, there was no deception by the victim

Nevertheless, it is erroneous in the judgment that the second instance court found him guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the second instance court and the appellate court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the victim is able to make a big profit if the Defendant, who is a party to the investigation agency, is able to make a cash of the subscription money, U.S. bonds, gold ingot, etc.

In light of the fact that the victim provided a real estate owned by the Defendant as a collateral and provided a real estate owned by the Defendant as a collateral for the establishment of the right to collateral security, it is difficult to understand that the victim provided a real estate owned by the Defendant as a collateral for the establishment of the right to collateral security in light of the following: (a) the victim became aware of the Defendant through the introduction of F around 2007; and (b) the victim came to know of the Defendant at least 6-7 times from April 2008, which was established the right to collateral security; and (b) the victim provided a real estate owned by the Defendant as a collateral for the establishment of the right to collateral security; and (c) it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant provided the victim with the real estate owned by the Defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case in the first instance judgment is considerable to the Defendant’s immunity and the former president’s visa issued in the United States.